The End Of DirectX As We Know It 285
socram writes "Speaking with ATI and NVIDIA at ECTS allowed us to confirm that after DX9.0, DirectX Graphics is no more. In name only. Microsoft's next set of core presentation and 3D APIs are now under the umbrella of Windows Graphics Foundation and Avalon. Microsoft will still rely on DirectX in name for the rest of the core components, but the graphics API is now under a new name. Look out for WGF 1.0 compatibility on the back of that next generation graphics card's box. Some WGF 1.0 Info!" Update: 09/06 22:27 GMT by T : David Ross of hexus.net points out that this text comes straight from hexus, and should have been credited as such.
Wonderful (Score:4, Funny)
WGF? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wonderful (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wonderful (Score:2)
1. Same thing as the old DirectX, but it includes a nifty remote function call that leads to a swarm of new worms.
2. Same thing as the old DirectX, but every game and driver released before will stop working.
3. Same thing as the old DirectX, but even the new games won't work anymore.
4. Same thing as the old DirectX, just with a new name. Everything works the same.
hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:5, Interesting)
such changes are perfect to look around instead of hurrying to the next "standard"-MS-stuff....with some luck game devs might see, that OpenGL is neither dead nor old-fashioned!
well, there is hope...even if it is just a little!
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, developers today aren't 1 man teams pent up in their basements working against Big Brother, they are billion dollar industries (EA, id, whatever...) who have top of the line programmers who could make *any* API work regardless (because they have the budget to do so), who only really care about the performance and capabilities afforded by the API. Microsoft - like any other big company tending a big market - tries to please them, not piss them off!
IMHO, the time of the underdog syndrome is past... Let people use whatever friggin API they want. It's not like the gaming industry is in the middle of a standards battle.
On a different note, the really amazing thing about Avalon, and you gotta commend Moft for this, is that they're actually moving the graphics driver to User-mode. Just imagine what a gi-nourmous task that is... Let's you appreciate how they can have so much programming going on in there.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have a source for this? My impression of Avalon is that it's a library and version of Explorer.exe that sits on top of DirectX - of course the video card driver would still be ring 0, and the GDI+++ library (the new Avalon graphics library) would be user mode, just as GDI or GDI+ are today. Avalon represents a new interface application and set of tools for third party applications to use, but it isn't a tremendous plumbing change.
Funny thing about Microsoft software - invariably it hits the market as is dramatically less of a schism than people imagined it to be.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the first orders of business is to "fix busted stuff," as Blythe put it. These items include no more blue-screens (hard crashes) caused by the graphics driver, and moving more processing into what's known as user mode. [...]
To that end, Microsoft is investing considerable development resources into ensuring that crashes will be very rare, and that when they do occur (and they will), the graphics subsystem can do a snap
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly right, because DirectX is the only API people use. Why? Several reasons.
1. It drives all hardware development. There is no hardware built for SDL or OpenGL or what have you. Every feature--bad or good--is built to conform to Microsoft's latest DirectX rather than the other way around. And you thought Microsoft's monopoly was just in software! HA! And wait til you see what Longhorn itself brings to hardware!
Meanwhile, how do you even do Vsy
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it does. Some APIs have implementations on multiple platforms, and some don't.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:2, Insightful)
That is not what makes the API just as good. if the code were done with opengl, then people on macintosh, linux, etc... could easily port the game, without having to pay fee's to M$ for the use of the new libraries on the respective platforms.
For example. RTCW, Enemy Territory, WWIIOnline, etc... use opengl, so i can play it on all the machines i own, rather than only o
Re:please them? are you sure? (Score:5, Informative)
1) that page, judging by the date at the bottom, is 7 years old - that's plenty of time for the situation to have completely changes
2) judging from the logo on it and the URL, the guy is particularly anti-MS; you might want to cite a source with a little more objectivity
Re:please them? are you sure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Meaning that this article serves as a shining example of MS listening to developers.
Re:please them? are you sure? (Score:2)
Re:please them? are you sure? (Score:2)
It is always easier to "kill (or criticize) the messager" than to look at the message. Has Microsoft been a "good citizen" or continued using its monopoly on the desktop to bully game developers? Does it (completely) support industry standards (e.g. opengl)?
I get really tired of "MS fan boys" complaining. FOSS software has flaws - some people developing games hate X. Microsoft does a few things well. Overall MS is an evil empire but this could change. Imagine if
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:2)
Yeah, I used to browse Slashdot with this thing called Firebird, but then they changed its name, so I thought I'd better switch to this other thing called IE. Thanks for the advice -- it's good to know I made the right call on that one.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doom 3's probably the biggest - and even if you hate the game, its very existence means that graphics card manufacturers can't even think about dropping OpenGL support, at least not without alienating a good number of potential purchasers.
Thanks, John Carmack, for keeping OpenGL alive!
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:5, Informative)
And he almost decided to kill it off. According to Carmack, the "godawful interface" for OpenGL pBuffers/Render to Texture, made him be "the closest ever to switching over to D3D".
If you are interested in listening to an hour of video-graphics supergeeky stuff, download the one hour video [gamespy.com] of his keynote from Quakecon 2004.
It contains an hour of tech-talk from John C. about the doom3 engine, and what he's working on now.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:3, Informative)
As a historical note, Halflife added D3D support at some stage, even though it was based on Quake1/2, which was also OpenGL (and Glide & Software) based.
That being said, it was probably a lot easier to add at the time than with current engines, which implement a lot more features.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the only people who would be affected would be everyone who wants to play Doom 3 on their video card. That's a significant number of people.
Remember that Microsoft created PC gaming as we know it.
What the heck are you smoking? Microsoft was a pioneer in writing flight sims. But that's about it. You must be too young to remember what PC gaming was like before Microsoft ruled the universe.
There is nothing wrong with DirectX, except that such a brilliant idea came out of Microsoft.
There are plenty of things wrong with DirectX. One is that it is a proprietary standard created by MS to stop OpenGL. And unexpectedly, DirectX is locked-in to the Windows platform, unlike OpenGL.
It is not a 'brilliant idea' by any stretch of the imagination. It's was a mind-numbingly obvious idea. When DirectX was developed, essentially all PC apps had moved off DOS to Windows, except games. Obviously, Microsoft needed to get game developers to start using Windows. DirectX was an obvious solution. But they could, had they been less 'evil', just as well integrated OpenGL support into Windows instead.
Which I suspect is the real reason that certain people are as pro-OpenGL as they are. It's just more anti-Microsoft sentiment.
No, it's because OpenGL is a non-proprietary, cross-platform standard. DirectX is a proprietary API locked to the Windows platform.
That said, I'll concede that DirectX is better than OpenGL. It must be better than OpenGL to ensure its survival, because no developer wants to lock himself to a single vendor and platform if there is an equally good option.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, yeah. Different boot disks for every game, being able to rewrite CONFIG.SYS from memory just to get Wing Commander II to load, the joys of HIMEM.SYS and the differences between extended memory, expanded memory and high memory, manually setting the command-line IRQs for assorted soundcards and trying to find a real-mode DOS mouse driver that loaded in less than 5K of RAM.
Windows 95 (and to a lesser extent, DirectX) made it feasible to run games in the same environment as your 'normal' applications. They meant you could buy any Windows-compatible soundcard, video card, mouse or joystick and be fairly certain it would work. They also turned TCP/IP networking into a mass-market commodity. In that respect, I'd say Microsoft made a pretty substantial contribution to PC gaming as we know it. Created? Perhaps not. But I'd say PC gaming as we know it owes at least as much to Microsoft as it does to anyone else.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lest we forgot, we have Microsoft to thank for all of that too.
WTF 1.0 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WTF 1.0 (Score:2)
DirectX (Score:3, Interesting)
"Requires Nvidia TNT2 or better. Must be running as admin. Don't press alt-tab." (ok the last bit is in the readme not on the box). So my non-nvidia card won't help me even though DirectX 9.0c claims to be running fine.
(old coot) I remember when Windows 95 came out and Microsoft claimed that this would let games run on more than a couple of graphics cards. It seems they've given up on that recently (/old coot).
Re:DirectX (Score:5, Informative)
It's not MicroSoft's fault, by any extension, it is however silly that you are not allowed to check if it is playable according to _your_ standard; and it's the gamedevelopers you should blame.
I guess it's easy to point at something big, like MS if you want someone to blame, people tend to do that.
Re:DirectX (Score:3, Insightful)
so they put in just enough features that they can dub it as directx9 compatible... and slap it to the retailers with a package that claims it'll run games fast and that it is directx9 compatible - and that it is cheaper than ati/nvidia offering claiming similar things.
remember when virge dx was dubbed as 3d accelerator card?
M$ is the only one to blame... (Score:2, Insightful)
I have the same problem the grandparent post mentions. I used to like a game by Electronic Arts, "Need for Speed - Porsche Unleashed", which was released in 2000. Then in 2003 they released "Need for Speed Underground", which required a card beyond my Riva TNT2, so I got a GeForce FX5200. Now NFSPU doesn
Re:M$ is the only one to blame... (Score:2)
You're so right. They have no business creating a product and enhancing it as time goes on and new gpus become available. That's what a company that was trying to make a profit by filling a market niche would do! Ew! They should have donated all their efforts to some other product.
Re:M$ is the only one to blame... (Score:2)
They have every to do whatever they can get away with, right?
Using their own "standards" to lock people to their platform, perpetuating their own dominance. It makes it much harder for competition to arise in this situation. The majority of games will never be ported to another system.
Sounds fair? Sounds like monopoly abuse to me.
Re:M$ is the only one to blame... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's probably driver problem causing this, because you normally need a new driver to match the DirectX increments; sucks, but that's what it takes.
It's actually the buyers market, if people didn't spend money on top of the line graphics cards with new features then DirectX wouldn't need to be updated to accomodate those features.
I do think that better game programmers would write a more dynamic gfx engines that are pluggable with the new features instead of d
Re:DirectX (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, the long and short of it is, if PCs are meant to compete with the PlayStation 2, then they're going to have a narrow band of hardware. The sort of performance needed for a PC game to be equivalent to a PS2/Xbox means having a top end graphics card, and using most of those top end features. Sad, but if you want cutting edge,
I did deal with it (Score:2)
And a couple of days ago I was at a conference where microsoft was telling games developers how to write for windows (not requiring admin rights to run, allowing ALT-TAB to work without crashing the PC, etc.). The afternoon of the conference was cancelled due to lack of interest (the speakers outnumbered the attendees).
Well (Score:2)
And since I have an AMD chip (which AFAIK do not support all Intel instructions, but have quite a few of their own extra instructions) I would be reluctant to spend money if it specifically claimed it required a pentium 3 chip (and didn't mention Athlon), when I could spend money on a game that will work (for PS2, GameCube or GBA),
Re:DirectX (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, on most of the requirements I've seen recently, it'll list something like "Graphics card: 100% DirectX 8 compatible, 64MB RAM". Just because in today's hardware market that translates to "a recent card from NVidia or ATI" doesn't make that MS's fault.
So my non-nvidia card won't help me even though DirectX 9.0c claims to be running fine
Chances are, DX 9 *is* running fine, but your card lacks support for certain features used by the game. Now, the game devs could fall back to software, or even just disable those features; not doing so is not the fault of DX or MS.
Re:DirectX (Score:2)
I've seen that with the Deus Ex 2 demo, which refused to run on my gf's PC due to lack of hardware support for T&L. That was the demo saying "no, sorry, won't play", not DX.
Re:DirectX (Score:2)
Without it, your card would have to be specifically coded for, to enable the game to run. As it is, most cards from most manufacturers work with most games, as opposed to a few cards from a few manufacturers work with a few games.
Your card not being able to play those games isn't microsoft's fault. Of course, this is slashdot, where logic never impedes
Re:DirectX (Score:2)
The key being how you define "modern". As a not-at-random example, City of Heroes will not work with a ATI 7500 -- a card less than three years old. I'll grant the 7500s are far from state-of-the-art. But if you're defining "modern" as "less than 18 months on the market", I believe you've been hanging out with Humpty Dumpty [sundials.org] too long.
Re:DirectX (Score:2)
Actually, I'm not even bothered by it being unsupported. I'm merely objecting to the imprecise definintion of a "modern" video card when claiming "any modern card will run any modern game". For the emphasis you wish, a better phrasing might be "any modern game is playable with cards using chipsets from any current video chipset manufacturer."
WGF? (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft Windows
Windows Graphics Foundation
(B)it(M)a(P)
Microsoft Proxy Server
Exchange Server
Windows Update Server
Microsoft Word
and many more...
MS memo (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft Windowbird
Bitthunder Mapping Format
Proxyfox
Microsoft WordBird
For every day use, the following abbreviations should be adopted to referring to the product as simple as possible:
MWB
BMF
PFX
MWD
Any more suggestions?
Re:WGF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me -- just from the names -- what the following programs do:
Apache
Firefox
Thunderbird
Mono
BitTorrent
Putty
(and the fucking stupidest ever) Script-Fu, part of The Gimp
The idea, I guess, is to glamorize the program name like a brand name, and I suppose it works for some things (Apache, for example). Most of the time, however, it only serves to confuse people who have never heard of a program before. Microsoft errs on the side of shit you can understand, because when they use funky names (like BackOffice), they spend a lot of time explaining what the damn program does.
Re:WGF? (Score:5, Funny)
A big honkin' helicopter.
Propels Fox upward (or whevever you tilt the stick) while frying everyone nearby on the ground.
It only plays from the other speaker, or if you're lucky, same stuff from two speakers. So, it's probably ancient.
Hey, I know this one! It moves tons and tons of bits from one place to another! Am I right?! What did I win? Tell me!
Turns perfectly working Linux server into a blob of clay, probably. Remotely. From a Windows desktop.
"-Fu" probably refers to martial arts, so... um... "Script-Fu's Name that could be understood is not the true Script-Fu's Name." Or something.
Re: WGF? (Score:2)
Tell me -- just from the names -- what the following programs do:
Since when were program names supposed to be nothing more than bland descriptions (cue "in Soviet Russia" joke...)? They're for branding for chrissake! It would be incredibly irritating if every program were named that way ("Do you have 'internet browser'"? "No, I have 'internet navigator'. Or maybe that was 'internet explorer'?")
Okay, so I'm exagerrating for laughs
Re:WGF? (Score:2)
firefox, the clint eastwood browser.. "I know what you're thinking punk, did I install 5 IE updates or all six?"
thunderbird, international rescue data recovery
mono, a budget sb16 sound card, new for linux
bittorrent, modem accelerator
grep, the prequel to shrek
putty, (easy one) what you use to stop (memory) leaks in windows.
script-fu, I am still meditating and seeking enlightenment on that one.
no you want silly, try these
microsoft autoroute, nope, won't ev
Re:WGF? (Score:2)
Though as a graphic artist, I do have to say that The Gimp is very aptly named.
As for the rest, I'm biased because I already know what all the soft does....
I'm sorry. (Score:5, Funny)
Hrm. I can hear the slogan now....
If it doesn't make you say "WTF" it isn't from Microsoft!
I don't think so (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't think so (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Interesting)
There are early versions of the API's floating around if you know where to look... trust me when I say this isn't the revolutionary be all and end all of windows graphics API's... It's just a minor evolution of DX, and a wrapper ontop of DX (think d3dx functions currently) that simply makes UI tasks easier. Perhaps that Eurographics '04 talk you attended was a lot of hype with little substance? Did they back up any of their claims?
So many changes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So many changes... (Score:2)
it's still too early to speculate what will really make it or not..
Re:So many changes... (Score:2)
Re:So many changes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So many changes... (Score:3, Informative)
of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Misleading title: DirectX is more than Direct3D (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm using DirectShow a lot myself actually. Are changes expected there too?
Re:Misleading title: DirectX is more than Direct3D (Score:2)
Other more reasonable parts of DirectX (DirectInput, DirectSound, etc) will still be there...
mixed feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not a good idea to replace an API when that API is one of the major libraries people use to display fast graphics.
It is however a good idea to force people to use a new standard when the old one has limitations that start to pop up. Sometimes it's necessary to cut the cables and start over.
Personally I think Dx9 is still all valid and good, it has no issues concerning shader support or other. I would not have replaced this API at this point, because I would consider the WGF as a surplus, something extra alongside DX. I guess doubling up the internal library is too cumbersome for the ones writing the video card drivers, which is why they replaced everything at once.
Re:mixed feelings (Score:2)
Old games using old version of DX should work just fine if they are not doing anything wierd. I have run ino a few old DX games that have glitches, but most run just fine.
In other news.. The end of Windows as we know it. (Score:2, Funny)
After Windows Longhorn, Windows is no more. In name only. The next OS from Microsoft will be integrated into the core of WMG 9.0.
Seeing that graphics cards exceeds standard desktop computers in both processing power and memory capabilities, it was the logical choice to have the graphics do the OS, and not the other way around., says Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft.
Look out for WMG 9.0 compatibility on the back of that next generation graphics card's box.
Reader in put required ... (Score:3, Funny)
WGF=Windows Graphical Frustrater
WGF=Windows Gore Functionality
WGF=Windows Glitch Factory
WGF=Windows!!! Go Figure?!?!
Excersize your imagination:
WGF=______________________
Sigh! If only they had called it WTF!
Re:Reader in put required ... (Score:3, Funny)
Wife or Girl Friend?
I guess that's more hopeful thinking than imagination.
Oh I got a good one! (Score:4, Funny)
Ha ha!
What?
Shit.
Re:Reader in put required ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reader in put required ... (Score:2)
You know, the kind that eats lots of.. cpu cycles
Ending at Direct X 9.0??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ending at Direct X 9.0??? (Score:4, Funny)
Or (Score:5, Funny)
wait for DirectX 20
DirectXXX
Re:Ending at Direct X 9.0??? (Score:5, Funny)
I think they rename it before they reach 10.0 to make it less obvious that they wanted to avoid version Direct-X11.
Wait for it... (Score:3, Funny)
(Yes, that is a joke.)
Not so much a joke as... (Score:2)
v.1 = SHIP! OUT THE DOOR!
v.2 = features MS wanted in v1, initial bugfixes, etc.
v.3 = where user feedback starts getting implemented.
90% of the CRAP in Windows is there because people want it, requested it, or bugged microsoft for it at some point, or MS had to slather it in to make something that people wanted actually Work (re: DOS compatability in NT4+).
Vaguely on-topic (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Vaguely on-topic (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Vaguely on-topic (Score:2)
The end? (Score:3, Funny)
H. Simpson : Woohoo!!
K. Brockman :
H. Simpson : D'oh!!
OT: is this a entry point for OSS (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, if wineX can fit the bill for now, maybe developers should just try to make sure their products work with that. It's cheaper and probably not the best for linux in the long run, but it takes care of the need now and at lower costs.
Any set of standards would have to work then with windows or else developers probably wouldn't be interested. Does anyone know of any projects that aimed to do this with some success?
Re:Makes perfect sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just that Microsoft is finally catching up with Apple in [b]using[/b] GPU functions to control more than just games.
Re:Makes perfect sense. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Makes perfect sense. (Score:2, Informative)
As a poor college student, ram is hard to come by. I don't want my desktop using it all to generate spiffy little icon effects. And seeing as Microsoft isn't going to ship multiple desktops, I hope Longhorn keeps the graphics simple for us poor kids.
Re:Makes perfect sense. (Score:2)
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nice... (Score:2)
How much more explicit can it be man? Give me a break and RTFA.
On a side note, I am sure in the 15 years since NT 3.5 came out, there has been some developments in the kernel, and programming know how to allow for better performance than what we had back then
[OT] Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right, much time have passed since NT 3.1. Those days microkernels was thought to be the state of art, the future of kernels. Smart people claimed that as the hardware evolve, the performance gap between monolithic kernels and microkernels will become negligible and the robustness of microkernels will make it superior.
But it did not happen. Today, monolithic kernels dominate the desktop market, the only exception is OSX with its Mach kernel. The quasi-micro NT kernel was turned into a bloated monolithic kernel, BeOS died, and Hurd... hasn't really born yet.
Conclusion: monolitic design is still the way to follow.
Now back to the original topic: I don't really see any reason for userland graphics except stability. It WILL decrease performance, which is cruical for the VGA cards, and might result in driver incompatibility I think. If I'm right, then it will take quite some time to write compatible drivers for older cards (assuming that nvidia and ati is willing to write for their own cards). And Microsoft does not have time, they already decided to leave out WinFS from Longhorn. They can't postpone Longhorn beyond 2006 because that would be too big pull for desktop Linux/BSD. And I guess by 2006 ReactOS will become a usable OS too.
Re:[OT] Re:Nice... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know if that's the main motivator to them moving things to user-mode or not, but it seems so. I can imagine the drivers being built in a two-stage structure where the bulk of the driver is in user mode and a small back-end runs in kernel mode.
I am not sure wha
Re:Nice... (Score:2)
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Retro NT 3.51 (Score:2)
From memory, apparently they moved them into Kernel mode in NT 4.
Re:A little early to celebrating? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A little early to celebrating? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:curious (Score:2)
Re:curious (Score:4, Informative)
- OpenGL (Direct3D)
- OpenAL / CoreAudio (DirectSound)
- Quicktime (DirectShow)
- OpenPlay (DirectPlay)
- HID Manager (DirectInput)
I may have missed a few things. WGF is roughly equivalent to OpenGL / Quartz Extreme and everything else that DirectX does at the moment, while Avalon is equivalent to Aqua / WindowServer. Of course, the differences in architectural designs mean that these equivalencies are only very approximate.Re:Windows Girl Friend (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry to tell you that this is the impossible dream. Having been married for 21 years and having 3 daughters I am an expert on how little men will ever know about women. The more you learn, the less sense it makes. Accept it and try to solve an easier problem, like the beginning of the universe, it will take less time and be achieveable!
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)